Resignation by Conclusive Conduct: The Ministry of Labour’s Response of April 10, 2025

With the entry into force of Law 203/2024, which allows employers to consider the employment relationship terminated in cases of prolonged unjustified absence by the employee, a new chapter has opened in the management of termination from an employment contract. However, it was Circular 6/2025 from the Ministry of Labour that sparked questions and interpretations, as it offered the first official reading of the new regulation. The National Council of Labour Consultants promptly raised concerns in a formal note dated April 2, to which the Ministry replied on April 10, 2025.

Let’s look at the key takeaways and the potential practical implications for companies and professionals.

The 15-day issue: contractual flexibility or non-negotiable threshold?

One of the most debated aspects concerns the duration of the unjustified absence required to activate the new procedure. The law does not set a fixed period but states that this is “unless otherwise provided by national collective agreements.” Yet, according to the Ministry’s official interpretation, collective agreements can only extend – and not shorten – the minimum 15-day period established by law.

This interpretation raised alarms among labour consultants, who believe the law gives full discretion to collective bargaining, without a one-sided limitation. In their view, the legislator’s intent was to provide a flexible tool adaptable to different production environments and sector-specific rhythms. Imposing a minimum threshold, without clear legislative grounds, could undermine this intended flexibility.

In its reply, the Ministry explained this interpretation as a precautionary measure aimed at protecting workers from potential abuses, while also hinting that the issue may be subject to future judicial reinterpretation. In short, the final word may not have been spoken yet.

The (non-automatic) role of the Labour Inspectorate and potential reinstatement

Another important point concerns the effects of the procedure in case of disputes. What happens if the employee proves they were unable to communicate the reasons for their absence? Or if the Labour Inspectorate finds that the conditions to trigger the procedure were not met?

The Ministry clarifies that, in such cases, the employment relationship is not automatically reinstated. It is up to the employer to decide whether or not to rehire the employee. This position aligns with the current legal framework, where termination through conclusive conduct does not follow the formal resignation process and therefore lacks a rigid reinstatement mechanism.

This means that, in many cases, only a court can assess the merit of each situation, evaluating whether the worker’s conduct could reasonably be interpreted as a voluntary resignation and whether the employer acted in good faith.

Resignation after the procedure: when the employee’s intention prevails

Another interpretive question arises when the employee submits a resignation for just cause after the dismissal procedure has begun, but before it takes effect. The Ministry suggests that, in such cases, the resignation would be the cause for termination.

Although theoretically valid, this scenario is difficult to achieve in practice. As specified in Circular 6/2025, the procedure takes effect based on the employer’s notification and the date indicated in the UniLav form, which starts the countdown. This leaves little room for a timely intervention by the employee.

However, the Ministry’s acknowledgment of this hypothetical situation raises broader questions: Is the distinction between implicit and explicit termination of employment truly clear? And who determines the exact moment the employment relationship ends?

Final remarks: a useful but still evolving procedure

The new rules on resignation through conclusive behavior mark a step forward in simplifying termination procedures, particularly in cases of job abandonment. But as with any innovation, this change brings interpretive challenges that require a careful balance between worker protection and legal certainty for employers.

The Ministry’s response offers important clarifications but also leaves space for critical reflection. Limiting the scope of collective bargaining in setting the minimum absence period seems inconsistent with the broader legislative trend of strengthening its regulatory role.

The future of this provision will largely depend on judicial interpretation and the legislator’s responsiveness to real-world needs. For now, it remains a useful but still maturing procedure.